Turkish National Church Stance Against Translation

The national churches continue to speak out against the translations that have been forced on them without their approval. The Bengali church has taken a large stance against the Islamized translations and the Insider Movement that Islamizes the church. Their testimony is seen in the video Unheralded. The Malaysian church has also made a statement against these translations. Let’s not forget the the Presbyterian Church In America has taken a strict stance in their statement document “A Call to Faithful Witness” as well as the Assembly of God denomination has given Wycliffe a deadline to change their ways.

In missions it is our desire to transfer authority and responsibility to the national churches. However, producing translations without the approval of local churches undermines their authority. One of the translation team leaders of the Islamized Matthew in Turkish answered when asked about them listening to the authority of the Turkish church said, “We listened to them, but we did not submit.” The national churches grow weary of these rogue organizations doing as they please without respecting the church. The local congregations of these targeted communies are declaring these translations are bad, harmful to ministry, and contradict sound Christian doctrine. Why aren’t Western churches and organizations heeding their cry?

While committees debate and discuss the issues of the removal of ‘Son of God’ and ‘Father’ from the scriptures by Wycliffe, we remind them, of the national churches who with one voice cry out, ‘Stop!’.

We ask, isn’t this just another form of western colonialism? How is it the ‘West’ knows what’s best for the national churches on the front lines, who are pressed in every way, who have sacrificed their lives for the gospel and have to live with the ramifications of these translations and methodologies.

As known, towards the end of 2011 a translation of Matthew’s Gospel was published and put on sale under the title of “The Meaning of the Glorious Injil from the Pen of the Apostle Matthew” generally known as ‘A translation for the religious’.

Since 2007, written and verbal communications in connection with this translation have been continuing at the initiative of the organizers of this translation project and at the request of our Council of Representatives. Following these exchanges, it was established that this translation used a number of terms which were harmful to the basic doctrines and concepts of Christian belief. And so in order to avoid Turkish speaking people, whether Christians or non-Christians, from being exposed to wrong teachings and misunderstandings, the translation committee was asked to change the points which, it was felt, were undermining Christian theology.

In the period that followed, the committee working on this translation project took notice of our views on these sensitive points and made some changes and furthermore included the original Greek text and its literal Turkish equivalent in the publication. However, they did not take into consideration our concerns and warnings about words vital to Christian belief and used adverse terms such as ‘God’s representative’ instead of ‘Son of God’, ‘Mevla (Protector/Helper)’ for Father and ‘Repentance ablutions’ for ‘Baptism’ in their translation. In short, our warnings about this project that it was obviously going to open the way to great problems came to nothing and unfortunately the translation of Matthew’s Gospel containing these errors appeared on sale.

We all, of course, want the Holy Scriptures to be read and understood by every sector of society. The translations produced by the Bible Society in the first half of the 20th Century are excellent in being true to historical Christian theology and also excellent for people who expect and understand classical religious expressions. The translation committee was reminded of this and it was explained to them that the ‘Translation for the religious’ would bring great harm than good. While it is desirable for different groups of people to understand the Injil, the undermining of basic theological teaching will only open the way to greater problems and confusion. Those responsible for this translation are aware of our serious concerns about this since the dialogue between us is ongoing and must continue to be. For this reason, we are expecting them to change the misleading words in their translation.

In conclusion, as leaders of local Protestant churches that are members of the Alliance of Protestant Churches, we find in the afore-named publication, the misleading translations of these very important and foundational New Testament terms to be wrong and extremely adverse. We stress the need to change these terms and wish to inform all churches and their congregations that we find this translation that presents the Injil in corrupt terms, to be unacceptable and unusable and that we most certainly cannot approve of it.